There
is no congressional deadline. The state legislature failed to adopt
legislative districts so a plan by the 5-member Legislative
Redistricting Board was adopted on July 24, 2001.

Who’s in Charge of Redistricting?

The
legislature. The Senate Committee of the Whole on Legislative and
Congressional Redistricting and the House Committee Redistricting are
the committees that have jurisdiction. The governor has veto power over
both congressional and state legislative plans.

Districting Principles

Principle

Congressional

State Legis.

Compactness

+

Contiguity

Political subdivisions

+

Communities of interest

Cores of prior districts

Protect incumbents

VRA § 5

+

+

+ = required - = prohibited

Public Access

Open
hearings are held around the state in order to give the public a chance
to participate in redistricting. Citizens are also able to directly
access computer systems through their legislators, in order to draw
their own plans. In addition, the legislature has a redistricting site with maps, information about litigation, input, news, a timetable, and an email listserve.

Political Landscape

Democrats
drew the most effective partisan gerrymander for congressional
elections in the nation in 1991. The eight Republican incumbents were
put into districts packed with Republican voters. These incumbents won
overwhelmingly, but despite the fact that the statewide
congressional vote was evenly split, Democrats won 21 of the remaining
22 seats -- including the three newly-created seats, each of which
were filled by state legislators who had served on redistricting
committees. Only one of thirty races was decided by a margin under 10%
in 1992.

But the state has trended Republican in the 1990's,
with Republicans sweeping statewide elections and winning many
down-ballot races, such as judicial elections. As Republicans have won
larger majorities of the congressional vote, they have narrowed
Democrats’ advantage in congressional seats to its current 17-13 edge
and have taken over the state senate.

The state gained two more
seats in 2001. With Democrats only in control of half of the
legislature, the next redistricting likely will result in a more
neutral plan, which likely will be enough to reverse the Democrats’
current edge in House seats.

Legislation/Reform Efforts

During
the 1997 regular session, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 715, which
enacted without change, the state senate districts approved in the 1995Thomas v. Bush settlement. That plan was subsequently used for
the 1998 elections. Also enacted during the 1997 regular session were
two bills affecting state house districts: House Bill 6 enacted the
state house districts approved in the 1995 Thomas v. Bushsettlement, with additional minor changes to six districts, and H.B.
2254 made minor changes to eight other house districts. The U.S.
Department of Justice precleared the changes, and the revised plans
were used for the 1998 elections.

Legal Issues

On
January 26, 1994, a suit was filed in federal court in Houston
challenging the Texas congressional districts as unconstitutionally
racially gerrymandered. In the summer of 1994, the court held three of
the districts unconstitutional. The state appealed the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court and proceeded to conduct the 1996 primaries under the
state's plan. In June 1996, the Supreme Court upheld the district
court's decision.

The district court voided the results of the
1996 primary elections in 13 of the state's 30 congressional districts
and ordered a special election to be held in those 13 districts on
general election day using an interim plan drawn by the court. The
district court gave the legislature until June 30, 1997, to enact a
permanent plan, but the 75th Legislature did not adopt a plan within
that time. On September 15, 1997, the court dismissed all pending
motions and ordered the court-drawn plan into effect for the 1998
congressional elections.

On January 25, 1995, Thomas v. Bushwas filed in federal court challenging 13 senate districts and 54 house
districts as unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. On September
15, 1995, the court ordered an agreed settlement under which: 1) eight
senate districts and 36 house districts were changed; 2) the staggered
senate terms drawn by lot in January 1994 were allowed to remain in
effect; and 3) the one-year prior residency requirement was waived for
the changed districts so that a candidate could run either in the same
numbered district in which the candidate resided under the prior plan
or in the new district in which the candidate resided.

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict 6

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict 8

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict 12

· Suburban Dallas; part of Ft. Worth, part of Arlington

· Heavily Republican, although part of the district is socially moderate

· Southern Texas · One of the poorest districts in the nation· Includes Texas’ largest Hispanic population· Strong tilt to Democrats (the 15th seat has never gone to a Republican)· 76% white; 1% black; 74% Hispanic

· South-central Texas

·
Odd shape reflects the 1992 districting desire to separate Democratic
and Republican neighborhoods to make the 21st to be heavily Republican

· 91% white; 3% black; 1% Asian; 14% Hispanic

· Parts of Dallas and Tarrant counties

· Leans Democratic --1992 redistricting increased the Democratic tilt

· 64% white; 20% black; 2% Asian; 21% Hispanic

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict 25

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict 29

· South Houston and suburbs

· One of the few swing districts in the Houston area; represented by Democrats throughout the 1990’s

· Voters tend to be fiscally conservative but socially progressive

· 63% white; 23% black; 4% Asian; 18% Hispanic

· Southeast—parts of Houston, Pasadena · Blue-collar, working class district·
Originally created as a Hispanic-majority district, but some Hispanics
were moved out of the district in redistricting adjustment· One of the poorer Texas districts, with a low percentage of college-educated residents · 58% white; 15% black; 2% Asian; 45% Hispanic